**********************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
Moderator: Paul John Barnette Jr.
Activation Date: March 8, 1997
Current Date:  August 21, 1997
Current Membership: 100
**********************************

>>One approach to Machiavelli is a variation on Pascal's gamble.  His
>>gamble said that you can either believe in God or not.  If you don't &
>>there is no God, you have gained nothing.  If you don't & there is a
>>God, you will pay dearly.  If you believe & there isn't a God you have
>>lost nothing.  If you believe & there is a God you win bigtime.
>>
>>Remember that Machiavelli says one must be
>>prepared to be bad if the situation calls for
>>it..he doesn't tell us to start out being bad.
>>
>>So the Machiavellian gamble is this:
>>
>>If you are not Machiavellian & men are good, things work out.  If they
>>are bad, you have lost big time.  If you are Machiavellian & men are
>>good you win because you don't need to be bad.  If they are bad, you do
>>your fear thing & the state is secure.  Seems to me you play the odds.
>
>----------------------------------
>
>Why do you suppose that there are virtually no more Princes in power today?
>

 No more Princes in power today?  I certainly think not.  Are there no more
Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Kings, or for that matter dictators and
despots?  Are there no more Congresses, Parliments, or Legislatures?  Are
there no more Governors and Mayors?  I think the tenets of The Prince go
well beyond the contempoary times of Machiavelli.  

Bret Williams


>>Congratulations to Mr. Sutherland on his piece of 8/15.
>>
>>I can't do justice to all of it, but continue to believe that
>>Machiavelli arouses us because he presents us with the conflict of
>>incompatible ends (security vs. justice, the closed vs. the open
>>state, love vs fear) & while extolling Chrsitian virtues suggests that
>>the Prince simply can't run a state that way.  And, as opposed to
>>"others" who present us with theory, gives us a number of examples to
>>illustrate his point.
>>
>>Do we beat on this messenger because he is wrong or because we find
>>his conclusions distasteful?
>
>-------------------------------
>
>Let us suppose that all Machiavelli is saying, is how one who has power
>should act in order to keep it. Isn't the desire for power itself a wrong
>desire?
>
>Adler/Weismann
>

Is it?

Bret Williams

*********************************************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
pbarnett@geocities.com
The Western Canon WWW Site
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6681/index.html
*********************************************************